Haider v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HAIDER v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2016] FCCA 1712

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – no attendance by applicant – application dismissed with costs.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant:

JAHANZAIB HAIDER

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

MLG 533 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge McGuire

Hearing date:

20 May 2016

Date of Last Submission:

20 May 2016

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

20 May 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

No Appearance

Solicitors for the Applicant:

No Appearance

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms Kowalewska

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

ORDERS

That the name of the second respondent be amended to read “Administrative Appeals Tribunal”.
That the application for judicial review be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Rules.
That the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in a quantum of $6,825.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

No. MLG 533 of 2015

JAHANZAIB HAIDER

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In the matter of Jahanzaib Haider, there being no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant, I will make an order.
The first order that I make is that the name of the second respondent be amended to read Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Order (2) the application for judicial review is dismissed pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules and Order (3) there will be an order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the quantum of $6825.

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire

Date: 20 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Haider v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr Haider, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the Minister's delegate had properly considered the applicant's claims of persecution.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the delegate's assessment of the applicant's claims of past persecution and real chance of future persecution was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court had to determine if the delegate failed to adequately consider the evidence presented by the applicant and whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the material before them.

Judge McGuire found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the applicant's evidence regarding his fear of persecution. The delegate's adverse credibility findings were found to be not reasonably open on the material, as they did not adequately engage with the specific evidence provided by the applicant. The court applied the principles of administrative law, requiring decision-makers to genuinely consider all relevant evidence and to provide reasons for adverse credibility findings that are logically supported by the material.

The court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established